Cowards • Hacker News Board

Re: Cowards

#181

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:04 PM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #121

Aqueous wrote: post #81

There are cowards and then there are people who willfully exaggerate. A backdoor implies unfettered access to data for batch collection and processing. That's what this story was about at the beginning - the government was indiscriminately collecting and possibly analyzing your private data using some sort of massive, sinister Big Data operation, the scale of which we can not even conceive, and these big web companie…

It's more about seizing the moment of widespread outrage to effect change, rather than ho-humming like a jaded hipster.

[deleted]

Re: Cowards

#182

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:05 PM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #121

Aqueous wrote: post #81

There are cowards and then there are people who willfully exaggerate. A backdoor implies unfettered access to data for batch collection and processing. That's what this story was about at the beginning - the government was indiscriminately collecting and possibly analyzing your private data using some sort of massive, sinister Big Data operation, the scale of which we can not even conceive, and these big web companie…

It's more about seizing the moment of widespread outrage to effect change, rather than ho-humming like a jaded hipster.

[deleted]

Re: Cowards

#183

Post by gcv » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:07 PM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #156

scythe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'know, I'd like to believe I'd do that in this situation, too. But people are more generous in theory than in practice. You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United State…

> You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United States of Atrocity in futile protest of its horrifying surveillance subterfuge. He also has over a billion people who would…

To be fair, Khodorkovsky was a billionaire, too. He'll get a third prison sentence on more trumped-up charges shortly. The existence of various kangaroo courts ("military tribunals") in the US security apparatus since the Bush 43 administration suggests that Zuckerberg's money and influence are nowhere near enough to protect him.

The buck for such decisions stops at the Oval Office, and its current occupant has no reelection campaigns to worry about.

Re: Cowards

#184

Post by bambax » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:13 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #105

bambax wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Just because it's "illegal" doesn't mean it can't be done -- just as, just because what the government asks is "legal" (??!?) doesn't mean it has to be complied with. "What will happen?" is an excellent question that is not even asked. Certainly not everything is an acceptable risk; if Larry Page seriously believe he would risk spending the rest of his life in prison for publishing national security letters,…

Because CEOs need to act like adults not petulant little children. You obey the law. Period. And if you don't agree with it you lobby directly or encourage your users to do so.

The whole business model of Silicon Valley is based on not obeying the law. It's called "disrupting", and how it works is "let's break laws and regulations we disagree with until they're either changed or recognized as obsolete".

This is how Uber works, or AirBnB... but not only. Facebook or Google routinely ignore European privacy laws. Twitter ignores European laws about free speech (which you and I may consider "bad" laws, but which are laws nonetheless).

So why is it that suddenly everyone hides behind the "law"?

Re: Cowards

#185

Post by tptacek » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:16 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #167

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.

Whistleblowers and illegal aliens might be morally equivalent to trade unionists and socialists, but terrorists are not equivalent to communists; I said nothing when they came for the terrorists because the terrorists were trying to murder my children.

Re: Cowards

#186

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:16 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #167

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.

[deleted]

Re: Cowards

#187

Post by bambax » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:16 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #167

First they came for the terrorists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a terrorist. Then they came for the whistle blowers, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a whistle blower. Then they came for the illegal aliens, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not an illegal alien. Then they came for the hackers--and there was no one left to speak for us.

This quotation is over used, and in the present case it's not really appropriate, because they started to harass "hackers" before they started to run after anyone else.

They even subverted the word "hacker" to have it mean something bad.

Re: Cowards

#188

Post by mshron » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:18 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #106

"Or to put it another way, who the hell needs “direct access” or “back doors” when companies are building “secure portals” for them instead?" The extent of his confusion is breathtaking. Apparently very few people get what this is all about. The real question is this: Does the government (a) mine content and/or metadata in these service providers' databases for suspect activity, or (b) can it only access specific acc…

I agree, this is the question. And the answer is "both". From the NY Times article:

> FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 percent from the year before.

Imagine a 2x2 matrix of intelligence requests, with one side being "narrow" vs "broad" and the other being "short" vs "long" duration. Verizon was long and broad, the worst kind.

The tech companies are trying to imply that they were short and narrow, at least most of the time, and the journalists are trying to imply that they were long and broad, but never come out and say it because they have no evidence. If we had better transparency about FISA, we could answer this question ourselves. Just knowing how many requests were for individual user's data would be extremely helpful.

Re: Cowards

#189

Post by conroe64 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:21 PM UTC

fijal wrote: post #103

scythe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'know, I'd like to believe I'd do that in this situation, too. But people are more generous in theory than in practice. You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United State…

"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

That quote should be, "I didn't speak out because I saw what happens to those that do."

Re: Cowards

#190

Post by protomyth » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 3:21 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #150

mtgx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is basically this: “All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing...” ― Edmund Burke That's so true. If they came out now, the country would be better for it. But they are deciding to be accomplices of the out of control and abusive government. I thought Google, at least, would be better than this, after the whole China situation.

> If they came out now, the country would be better for it. It's easy to ask for other people to fight for your rights. What are you doing about it?

Nice...

Getting the run-around for the IRS and the media seems to be the lot for those trying to get it together.